Kimball v. Davis
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Cou/rt. — Hon Daniel D. Eishek, Judge. (1) Davis could be made a stockholder only by contract or estoppel. Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20; also 92 Mo. 635. (2) He was not a stockholder by contract, never having subscribed for, agreed to pay for or owned any shares, except one which he purchased to qualify him as a director to protect his interest as a creditor. Burgess v. Seligman, supra.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Cou/rt. — Hon Daniel D. Eishek, Judge. (1) Davis could be made a stockholder only by contract or estoppel. Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20; also 92 Mo. 635. (2) He was not a stockholder by contract, never having subscribed for, agreed to pay for or owned any shares, except one which he purchased to qualify him as a director to protect his interest as a creditor. Burgess v. Seligman, supra. (3) The law of Iowa permits a corporation to come into existence without having its stock subscribed for. Johnson v. Kesler, 76 Iowa, 411. (4) Davis’ acting as…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This action was brought by the creditor of a manufacturing corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Iowa but having its chief place of business in Missouri, to charge the defendant as a stockholder of such corporation for a debt, due by the corporation to the plaintiff upon an open account, in the sum of $1,535.50. A trial in the circuit court, before the judge sitting as a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for the *201amount claimed, from which the defendant prosecutes this appeal.
In determining the questions presented by. the appeal, we have had the very…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Nanson v. JacobSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Burr v. . WilcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Hawley v. UptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Kritzer v. WoodsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- Schaeffer v. Missouri Home InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Grohmann v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Arn v. ArnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Union City Lumber Co. v. Traverse City, Leelanau & Manistique RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Citizens Mut. Inv. Assn. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1943